Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
An unusual twist in the typical product liability case can occur when a plaintiff asserts a post-sale warning claim. (In this article, “product” does not refer to consumer products that are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.) Because a post-sale warning claim is not frequently encountered, such a claim can cause confusion, especially with respect to the relation between the post-sale warning claim and the other claims that a plaintiff is asserting.
The following hypothetical helps to highlight a few of the problems that can arise when a plaintiff asserts a post-sale warning claim. The plaintiff is injured by a product in the workplace and sues the manufacturer of the product, alleging design defect, manufacturing defect, and warning defect claims. As to the warning claims, the plaintiff asserts that the product was defective because it did not contain an adequate warning when it was initially placed into the stream of commerce, and also contends that the manufacturer is liable because it should have issued a post-sale warning. All of those claims, with the exception of the post-sale warning claim, focus on facts, and hence evidence, that transpired prior to the manufacturer's placing the product into the stream of commerce.
During the course of discovery, the plaintiff focuses primarily on the manufacturer's actions and decision-making process prior to the manufacture of the product. However, in its response to the plaintiff's discovery requests, the manufacturer provides to the plaintiff a post-sale brochure that it mailed to last known owners of the product and to its distributors. The brochure contains general safety information about the product and advises the owners about additional safety devices that can be added to the product ' devices that the manufacturer always offered as options. The plaintiff's employer does not add the additional safety devices, and it is unclear whether the employer ever received the post-sale brochure.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?